Titles and Session Descriptions That Get Picked

What this is for

A program committee reads dozens of submissions in one sitting. Your title and description have to do real work in a few seconds of attention. This guide builds the exact assets most CFPs ask for: a title, a 50-word description, a 150-word description, and three takeaways, all built from a talk you've already developed, not invented for the occasion.

When to use it

Use this once your talk has a real structure (guide 20) and you're ready to submit it somewhere, or when an event asks you to reframe an existing talk for their specific audience. These assets also belong in your Battle Book so you're not rebuilding them from scratch for every submission.

The prompt kit

I'm writing CFP materials for a talk. Here's my one idea, my structure, and my teaching point: [paste from guides 12 and 20]

The event and audience are: [describe the event and who attends]

Before drafting anything, ask me: what does this specific audience care about that's different from my talk's usual audience? I want the framing to fit this room, not a generic version.

Based on what I've told you, draft five candidate titles. Rules: no puns unless I use puns in my normal voice, no vague inspirational phrasing, and every title should tell a program committee member roughly what they'll learn, not just create curiosity. Use only material I've given you.

I've picked this title: [paste it]

Now write a 50-word description and a separate 150-word description for this session. The 50-word version is for a printed program page with no room for nuance. It needs to be the sharpest possible summary. The 150-word version can unpack the promise a little more. Both should sound like me, not like event marketing copy.

Write three takeaways for this session - the kind that goes in a bullet list under "what you'll learn." Each one should be something a person could act on, not a vague benefit like "gain new perspective." Base these only on what's actually in my talk structure, not on what a talk like this usually promises.

What good output looks like

A title that works tells a committee member what the session is about without needing the description to explain it. The 50-word version should survive being read in isolation, with nothing cut that changes its meaning. The three takeaways should each be specific enough that you could point to the exact section of your talk that delivers on it.

Watch out for

Promising a takeaway your talk doesn't actually deliver. It's easy to draft a takeaway that sounds strong but isn't backed by anything in the structure. Check each one against your actual outline before you submit.

Letting the description oversell. Program committees and audiences both notice when a description promises more than the talk delivers. Match the language to what's actually there, even if a stronger claim would sound better on the page.

Using different assets for every submission with no record of what you sent where. Save your title, both descriptions, and your takeaways in your Battle Book once they're finalized, so the next submission starts from a strong draft instead of a blank page.

Titles that only make sense once you've heard the talk. If a title needs the description to explain the joke or the reference, it's not doing its job. A committee member scanning a list of forty titles won't stop to decode it.